The all encompassing "players of today vs players from the past" thread

Still comes done to the access to proper facilities and equipment issue regardless of the era, country or sport.

Absolutely, that and actual desire. Back in the day, dirty 30's, rural environs, inner city etc, really through most of the decades up to the 60's, provided they had access to ice, indoor or out any and all equipment issues easily dealt with. There just werent the same societal pretensions in having the latest & greatest gear. People made do, innovated. Johnny Bowers first pair of pads crafted from an old mattress, his stick a curved branch carved to approximate. Frozen bull$#*& for a puck.... warmed up a bit, rather nasty to take that in teeth Im sure.

But there has been a shift in options today. This isn't to say Hockey isn't the sport Canadians can and will play the most because it is and probably always will be. Immigrants, even from non-hockey playing countries, can and do fall in love with the game once they get here and get a taste of the Canadian culture. But maybe in the 1950s there wasn't an option like soccer or football or baseball as much. Canadians have slowly started to get better at that. I know I would say for sure in my lifetime football and soccer are more popular in this country than ever before. It doesn't mean hockey isn't #1, it just means other sports are getting played more.

So yeah, I think per capita Canada produces less talent than they used to, which is still amazing since no country is within a country mile of us still

Valid points, but they do not address the 'immigrant's innate hockey blood' topic.
But adding to what you're saying, modern communication has also allowed immigrants the ability to immerse themselves in their own culture and hold on to existing norms and values more than they used to. 50-60 years ago immigrants would be fully immersed in Canadian/American culture usually within a generation or two. It doesn't work like that today. Likely why there is a spike in interest in non-traditional sports and a shift away from hockey.

Except the 9 team reference is from '92 till today when the League went from 21 to 30 teams.

Phil and you have both referenced the talent pool as keeping up with expansion when in fact the above years show the dynamic difference.

Quote:

Many Russian's were already in the League in '89 and the Yanks, Swedes and Finns were already well established long before '89.
The ENTIRE KML UNIT was in the NHL in 89/90, not just the line, the entire UNIT!

Actually it wasn't until 90 and the best Russians, ie. young and in their prime wouldn't come until later.

So the 9 team reference you keep bringing up only really consists of the remaining Russian's and the Czech's.

And you can NOT make up 9 teams with only the Czech's and 2/3's to 3/4's of the Russian's.

You are completely missing out on the actual facts, the amount in both terms of quality, ie top players and depth, in sheer numbers took a dramatic increase from all non Canadian countries after the early 90's.

There was a sprinkling of of players from Europe before then and the majority of non Canadians were from the US which happened in the 80's a full decade before the European invasion.

The dates and amounts of players are in simple black and white facts.

Why are you trying to cause confusion here?

I can't access my post from the Lindros versus Tzachuck thread but the numbers were pretty clear there.

To the modern player obviously, there is a sticky that we respect players from times gone apst but obviously modern guys are fair game.

Look at the top 5,10,20 in scoring in each and every year in the NHL then.

Do you not see a difference from say a 6 team all Canadian year in 1966 or the year 20__ pick any of the 13 years available.

If you seriously think that ranking in the top 5,10,20 in both comps is the same thing then you clearly can't or ignore to see the difference.

Even more go back to the 70's, how exactly are you going to compare a guy like Dionne to Makarov?

Not by using top scoring finishes in the NHL.

Personally I don't care if you see the point or not but your observations will be worth less with your biased and inaccurate starting point (that nothing changes) IMO.

At least you are up front about it, most won't say what you do but obviously your viewpoint in analysis is prevalent here in comparing players over different eras.

Well, apparently your definition of "biased" is anybody who doesn't agree with you that the current generation of players is the best ever. Which, quite frankly, is disrespectful to previous generations of players not the least of which is because of the implication that previous generations of players are inferior because they are Canadian. Perhaps an examination of your own bias is in order?

To the modern player obviously, there is a sticky that we respect players from times gone apst but obviously modern guys are fair game.

The sticky was created to stop posters from coming to the history board and trashing the history of the sport, which is effectively the same as going to an NHL team's home board and trashing that team, basically trolling.

If you don't like the rules of the History of Hockey board, you are free to post elsewhere.

The sticky was created to stop posters from coming to the history board and trashing the history of the sport, which is effectively the same as going to an NHL team's home board and trashing that team, basically trolling.

If you don't like the rules of the History of Hockey board, you are free to post elsewhere.

Holy Mackerall

A thread I didn't get the wrath of TheDevilMadeMe and a misconduct, must be my lucky day

Well, apparently your definition of "biased" is anybody who doesn't agree with you that the current generation of players is the best ever. Which, quite frankly, is disrespectful to previous generations of players not the least of which is because of the implication that previous generations of players are inferior because they are Canadian. Perhaps an examination of your own bias is in order?

Even more go back to the 70's, how exactly are you going to compare a guy like Dionne to Makarov?

Not by using top scoring finishes in the NHL.

That is just one out of many points you can use, although Makarov didn't have the luxury of being in the NHL in his best years.

However, you can always use the eye test. Watch how Dionne played the game on the ice surface, etc. You can see that Dionne was very much Lafleur's equal from an offensive standpoint and then blows him out of the water with durability because of all his great years in the 1980s. So I don't think we are blind mice here, there are plenty of ways on the History board where we can compare players from different era. It does get a little tricky when you do it with Makarov since he never played in the NHL but I think you can do it with Dionne and, say, Crosby for instance.

So I don't think we are blind mice here, there are plenty of ways on the History board where we can compare players from different era. It does get a little tricky when you do it with Makarov since he never played in the NHL..

No, certainly not blind mice, in fact if anything far too inclusive, including non-NHL performers in All Time Rankings, comparisons of those who never stepped foot on an NHL rink with those who did highly problematical, contentious. Resumes' from Canada Cup's, International Play IMO a rather shallow set of criteria to be using when making such comparisons. The NHL was & still is a far more gruelling, taxing & challenging environment to International & Exhibition play. One need only look at the career arc of a lets say Jim Craig of the 1980 Team USA squad to see how that can work out, as in non-translation, not transferable. Nothing whatsoever to do with xenophobia, elitism; everything to do with logic, objectivity.

Well, apparently your definition of "biased" is anybody who doesn't agree with you that the current generation of players is the best ever. Which, quite frankly, is disrespectful to previous generations of players not the least of which is because of the implication that previous generations of players are inferior because they are Canadian. Perhaps an examination of your own bias is in order?

Show me where I stated that the current generation is the "best ever'?

I'm pointing out the differences in that makeup which you are ignoring once again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe

The sticky was created to stop posters from coming to the history board and trashing the history of the sport, which is effectively the same as going to an NHL team's home board and trashing that team, basically trolling.

If you don't like the rules of the History of Hockey board, you are free to post elsewhere.

I understand the sticky and I abide with it, is asking for fairness and context for all players to much to ask?

Perhaps you could answer these 2 questions.

1)Is it fair to compare top 5,1020 finishes in a 21-30 team fully integrated league with basically all of the players form the new hockey talent areas to past years with less teams and a more singular makeup?

2)Is it not fair to ask the question of how much of a difference it makes to have players from other non Canadian talent streams in the top 5,10 and 20 in scoring and how they compare.

Show me where I stated that the current generation is the "best ever'?

I'm pointing out the differences in that makeup which you are ignoring once again.

Every single time you try and say that anyone not playing in a "fully integrated league" should be diminished or newer players should be elevated because that kind of competition either wasn't that available in the case of the Russians and Czech in the 70's-mid 80's or it was just plain non-existent and a non-factor prior to the 70's.

The best of the best playing the best of the best and even when the league wasn't quite all of the best of the best it was still a hell of a lot more than any where else on the planet.
All I hear is people complaining that a Makorov doesn't get enough credit yet I don't see anyone *****ing that a lot of his stats were inflated by playing much weaker teams in Europe and at times, freakin terrible international teams in 13-1 demo jobs.

Like seriously, by your definition, we shouldn't pay much attention to any players that didn't play in the early 90's because THAT was the highest concentration of talent on the fewest teams in the history of the League period!

Quote:

I understand the sticky and I abide with it, is asking for fairness and context for all players to much to ask?

Perhaps you could answer these 2 questions.

1)Is it fair to compare top 5,1020 finishes in a 21-30 team fully integrated league with basically all of the players form the new hockey talent areas to past years with less teams and a more singular makeup?

2)Is it not fair to ask the question of how much of a difference it makes to have players from other non Canadian talent streams in the top 5,10 and 20 in scoring and how they compare.

The timeline doesn't matter, it just happens to be a recent thing.

Are are you going to agree that era doesn't matter?

Either it does or it doesn't.

FOR THE LAST TIME, ERA DOESN'T MATTER!!!
You would have to be on crack to think that the best players not in the NHL in the 70's and 80's are not getting a fair shake. One look at most all-time lists quickly puts that notion to rest.

As far as a changing game changing things to the degree you keep spouting...

WE ARE ALL STILL WAITING WITH BAITED BREATH FOR YOUR EXPLANATION FOR HOW PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED PLAYERS LIKE JAGR, LIKE BOURQUE, LIKE LIDSTROM, LIKE SELANNE JUST TO NAME SOME FROM A LONG ASS LIST, STAY IN THE LEAGUE FOR SO LONG AT SUCH A HIGH LEVEL.

It is an argument you have never answered to, only ignored or avoided and quite frankly I don't expect that to change anytime soon.

Every single time you try and say that anyone not playing in a "fully integrated league" should be diminished or newer players should be elevated because that kind of competition either wasn't that available in the case of the Russians and Czech in the 70's-mid 80's or it was just plain non-existent and a non-factor prior to the 70's.

The best of the best playing the best of the best and even when the league wasn't quite all of the best of the best it was still a hell of a lot more than any where else on the planet.
All I hear is people complaining that a Makorov doesn't get enough credit yet I don't see anyone *****ing that a lot of his stats were inflated by playing much weaker teams in Europe and at times, freakin terrible international teams in 13-1 demo jobs.

Like seriously, by your definition, we shouldn't pay much attention to any players that didn't play in the early 90's because THAT was the highest concentration of talent on the fewest teams in the history of the League period!

FOR THE LAST TIME, ERA DOESN'T MATTER!!!
You would have to be on crack to think that the best players not in the NHL in the 70's and 80's are not getting a fair shake. One look at most all-time lists quickly puts that notion to rest.

As far as a changing game changing things to the degree you keep spouting...

WE ARE ALL STILL WAITING WITH BAITED BREATH FOR YOUR EXPLANATION FOR HOW PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED PLAYERS LIKE JAGR, LIKE BOURQUE, LIKE LIDSTROM, LIKE SELANNE JUST TO NAME SOME FROM A LONG ASS LIST, STAY IN THE LEAGUE FOR SO LONG AT SUCH A HIGH LEVEL.

It is an argument you have never answered to, only ignored or avoided and quite frankly I don't expect that to change anytime soon.

I have already addressed your 2nd question, if you disagree that's fine.

As to your 1st point on era not mattering, thanks for the info and your input will be judged on those facts.

I have already addressed your 2nd question, if you disagree that's fine.

If my second question is referring to the players I mentioned and how long they played...you have never addressed that question, NEVER!!!

Quote:

As to your 1st point on era not mattering, thanks for the info and your input will be judged on those facts.

If context doesn't matter then what exactly does?

Of course context matters but your idea of context comes from a world where the sky is all rainbows, chickens lay golden eggs and candy grows on trees.

Again, Gretzky didn't play in a vacuum. Guys like Stastny or Bossy who were just as good or better than anyone in the league today couldn't come close to doing what Gretzky did with Edmonton or with the King's for that matter.

Your premise, your theories, your logic all fall on their face the second we start talking about actual player to player, era to era comparisons, they always have.
That's a fact!

If my second question is referring to the players I mentioned and how long they played...you have never addressed that question, NEVER!!!

Well yes actually I have and on guys like Sakic in his last 100 point season and Mario in his 43 game season.

You might not like or agree with the answers but we have been there and done that, not really sure why you would say otherwise?

Quote:

Of course context matters but your idea of context comes from a world where the sky is all rainbows, chickens lay golden eggs and candy grows on trees.

Maybe it's me find the posts where I'm saying those things.

Seriously.

Quote:

Again, Gretzky didn't play in a vacuum. Guys like Stastny or Bossy who were just as good or better than anyone in the league today couldn't come close to doing what Gretzky did with Edmonton or with the King's for that matter.

We don't know how Stastny or Bossy would do today so set up straw men elsewhere.

The number of GF for the Kings/Oilers in 88 and 89 are out there as are the numbers of GF for all teams post lockout, it simply takes too many "if this happens and if that happens" to put together a strong argument for 160 plus points by any player period.

Quote:

Your premise, your theories, your logic all fall on their face the second we start talking about actual player to player, era to era comparisons, they always have.
That's a fact!

Actually it's not, the only fact here is that you are disagreeing with me and resort to name calling and other weird stuff with sometimes an argument here and there which usually changes depending on your mood or player (see Lidstrom and his Norris trophies and your use of era in that regard, when here era doesn't matter for some reason).

Well yes actually I have and on guys like Sakic in his last 100 point season and Mario in his 43 game season.

You might not like or agree with the answers but we have been there and done that, not really sure why you would say otherwise?

If you ever presented actual answers, then I could at least disagree or dislike them but that has yet to happen.
Citing a perfect storm every 4-5 years, in pretty much every example is just bullcrap IMO and no answer at all.

Quote:

Maybe it's me find the posts where I'm saying those things.

Seriously.

The point was that I don't believe that you live in the same reality as most of us do.

Quote:

We don't know how Stastny or Bossy would do today so set up straw men elsewhere.

Why the hell don't we?
I coulda swore those guys played against Bourque and he played right up till '01.
You are not honestly trying to say that a talented guy like Bourque could adapt through 3 decades but talented guys like Bossy and Stastny couldn't?
Riiiight

Quote:

The number of GF for the Kings/Oilers in 88 and 89 are out there as are the numbers of GF for all teams post lockout, it simply takes too many "if this happens and if that happens" to put together a strong argument for 160 plus points by any player period.

Yeah, a what if like say...an 18 year old kid that is perfectly suited to play under certain new rules and he makes the best of it?
Or does your "Perfect Storm" rhetoric only apply to guys named Gretzky and Orr?

Quote:

Actually it's not, the only fact here is that you are disagreeing with me and resort to name calling and other weird stuff with sometimes an argument here and there which usually changes depending on your mood or player (see Lidstrom and his Norris trophies and your use of era in that regard, when here era doesn't matter for some reason).

I don't know what the hell you're talking about? That post was talking about competition, more specifically consistent competition. Of which Lidstrom won most of his Norris pretty weak in that department.
It certainly wasn't about era my friend.